WI George II of GB had no surviving sons?

I was taking a look at British history for some more POD ideas (I have so many PODs but so few resulting timelines :rolleyes:), and I at first wanted to tackle something that would feature British politics, Jane Austen, and Beethoven to some extent. However, I saw something that captured my interest more; George II outlived two of his three sons (granted, one died in infancy), and the third--William, "Butcher Cumberland"--only outlived him by five years with no kids. The Hanoverian dynasty could therefore end a lot earlier if Frederick (OTL George III's father) at least predeceases his father before marriage. We'd have William for a few years assuming Geo II dies as per OTL, and then--here's the best part IMO--

we have William V of Orange-Nassau, Princess Anne's son, become king of Great Britain, Ireland, and nominally France in 1765ish.

What might it mean for another king of Dutch ancestry to ascend to the British throne? Do the Netherlands become a kingdom within an alt-UK, or are they split from the British isles as soon as possible? How would Britain develop without a long-reigning monarch like Victoria? Would there still be American and French Revolutions, and if so, would they succeed? Might we see revolutions in, say, Spain or Poland instead? A state within the HRE? I have a lot more ideas, but I want to start with these.

So my idea overall is kind of based on My Username is Inigo Montoya's "No legit male issue from Geo III", except that would be harder since he had eight sons total. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=257332&highlight=george+iii
 
I was taking a look at British history for some more POD ideas (I have so many PODs but so few resulting timelines :rolleyes:), and I at first wanted to tackle something that would feature British politics, Jane Austen, and Beethoven to some extent. However, I saw something that captured my interest more; George II outlived two of his three sons (granted, one died in infancy), and the third--William, "Butcher Cumberland"--only outlived him by five years with no kids. The Hanoverian dynasty could therefore end a lot earlier if Frederick (OTL George III's father) at least predeceases his father before marriage. We'd have William for a few years assuming Geo II dies as per OTL, and then--here's the best part IMO--

we have William V of Orange-Nassau, Princess Anne's son, become king of Great Britain, Ireland, and nominally France in 1765ish.

What might it mean for another king of Dutch ancestry to ascend to the British throne? Do the Netherlands become a kingdom within an alt-UK, or are they split from the British isles as soon as possible? How would Britain develop without a long-reigning monarch like Victoria? Would there still be American and French Revolutions, and if so, would they succeed? Might we see revolutions in, say, Spain or Poland instead? A state within the HRE? I have a lot more ideas, but I want to start with these.

So my idea overall is kind of based on My Username is Inigo Montoya's "No legit male issue from Geo III", except that would be harder since he had eight sons total. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=257332&highlight=george+iii


Interesting idea but unlikely. If Frederick dies before having children, than William will become the Heir apparent. As the heir he WON'T stay single and will have to marry. So unless he also dies childless, this won't work. I suppose, however, that both could die in some sort of Smallpox epidemic. It would leave Anne as the heiress presumptive. Then, assuming she dies on schedule, William will become William IV in 1760. It would be interesting to see who becomes his Regent in Britain. Princess Amelia perhaps?

Anyway, there would definitely be an Anglo-Dutch union. The Stadtholdership of the Dutch Republic had been made hereditary in 1747. So Britain would lose Hanover but gain the Netherlands. And Britain would still have a long-reigning monarch. William IV would be King for 40+ years and the butterflies would change things so much that we could easily see a long-reigning monarch similar to Victoria, hell maybe one who would actually know how to use his or her Royal prerogative.

As to the American and French Revolutions, IDK. The American revolution, MAYBE. I think it depends on how William handles the Government and if he can get some sort of compromise between the colonists and Parliament. The French, on the other hand, will probably still happen, though maybe not exactly the same way.

The other question is how this affects the Netherlands. At this point the Dutch Republic was in decline, so would a union between it and Britain help or hurt? Britain was a major rival so what happens there is up in the air, as I don't know much about dutch history in this era.
 
George II outlived two of his three sons (granted, one died in infancy), and the third--William, "Butcher Cumberland"--only outlived him by five years with no kids. The Hanoverian dynasty could therefore end a lot earlier if Frederick (OTL George III's father) at least predeceases his father before marriage.

So what you really mean is

WI George II had no surviving male-line descendants?

We'd have William for a few years assuming Geo II dies as per OTL, and then--here's the best part IMO--

we have William V of Orange-Nassau, Princess Anne's son, become king of Great Britain, Ireland, and nominally France in 1765ish.

What might it mean for another king of Dutch ancestry to ascend to the British throne?
Well, a regency, as William is only 12 years old.

Do the Netherlands become a kingdom within an alt-UK, or are they split from the British isles as soon as possible?

The Netherlands is not then a kingdom, hereditary or otherwise. William's father was stadtholder, which is an elective position. It became effectively hereditary in the House of Orange-Nassau, but legally it was not.

What almost certainly happens is that William moves to Britain and succeeds as King, while some paternal cousin of his is elected Stadtholder.

Neither Britain nor the Netherlands want a personal union of the two countries.

Another possibility is that the Orangist political faction in the Netherlands has him abdicate his British claim in favor of his next senior aunt, Mary, Landgravine consort of Hesse-Kassel. This would be awkward, as Mary despised her husband, who had also converted to Roman Catholicism in 1756. (This seems to have been some kind of personal weirdness; it was not applied to his realm.) However, she had moved with their three living sons to Denmark (the eldest was 17 in 1760).



How would Britain develop without a long-reigning monarch like Victoria?

William lived to be 56 or so, so he would reign over 40 years. Which is pretty long. And in any case, why would his succession avert a long-reigning monarch two or three generations down the road?

Would there still be American and French Revolutions

The American Revolution is going to be affected substantially by a decade or so of ministerial rule while William is a minor.
 
You want Willem V as king of Britain, possibly the worst stadholder the Netherlands got? I didn't realise you hated Britain so much. With Willem you probably get the "fat Duke" too.

Anyway, for the situation in the Netherlands, the main struggle is the early incarnation of the patriots against the Orange faction. With Willem in Britain, the patriots probably win, limiting the power of the stadholder in the Netherlands, unless Willem can convince the British to attack the Netherlands, like the Prussians did OTL.

Actualy i probably need to do a little bit more research. Anyway, I am not realy impressed by Willem V. He was a weak stadholder who was easily influenced by others. With him as king, it probably means parliament rules Britain.
 
The Netherlands is not then a kingdom, hereditary or otherwise. William's father was stadtholder, which is an elective position. It became effectively hereditary in the House of Orange-Nassau, but legally it was not.

What almost certainly happens is that William moves to Britain and succeeds as King, while some paternal cousin of his is elected Stadtholder.

Actualy no, when Willem IV became stadholder, the position of stadholder became hereditary.
 
Thank you all for such detailed and helpful replies!

Interesting idea but unlikely. If Frederick dies before having children, than William will become the Heir apparent. As the heir he WON'T stay single and will have to marry. So unless he also dies childless, this won't work.

That was what I was going for, yes. William of Cumberland sounded too cool to bar him from ever becoming king, but I still wanted a potential Anglo-Dutch union for at least a few decades. I tried to go both ways on this one--which candidate would be most interesting for a TL?

Okay, rest of your comments:

Anyway, there would definitely be an Anglo-Dutch union. The Stadtholdership of the Dutch Republic had been made hereditary in 1747. So Britain would lose Hanover but gain the Netherlands. And Britain would still have a long-reigning monarch. William IV would be King for 40+ years and the butterflies would change things so much that we could easily see a long-reigning monarch similar to Victoria, hell maybe one who would actually know how to use his or her Royal prerogative.
That would be my hope too.

As to the American and French Revolutions, IDK. The American revolution, MAYBE. I think it depends on how William handles the Government and if he can get some sort of compromise between the colonists and Parliament. The French, on the other hand, will probably still happen, though maybe not exactly the same way.
Well, I might post this question separately, but could taxes on the colonists have been passed and increased more gradually over fifty or so years to alleviate tensions? It would take a far-thinking prime minister, and it might still not work without political representation that Parliament might not want to give.
As for France, yes, there’d still be a revolution. It’s not a matter of if, it’s when and what resulting government.

The other question is how this affects the Netherlands. At this point the Dutch Republic was in decline, so would a union between it and Britain help or hurt? Britain was a major rival so what happens there is up in the air, as I don't know much about dutch history in this era.
Well, I think Dutch politics would be drastically different as a potential part of the UK. How closely integrated would the Netherlands be? How soon would they separate? Would the French still attempt to put a puppet gov’t of their own in place a la the Batavian Republic? And then, the British took a lot of Dutch colonies IOTL anyway.
So what you really mean is

WI George II had no surviving male-line descendants?

Yes, I did mean that. I changed the post partway through but didn't change the title.

Well, a regency, as William is only 12 years old.

The Netherlands is not then a kingdom, hereditary or otherwise. William's father was stadtholder, which is an elective position. It became effectively hereditary in the House of Orange-Nassau, but legally it was not.

I'm aware of that, but could it become hereditary as part of a dynastic union? It sounds like that would not happen.

What almost certainly happens is that William moves to Britain and succeeds as King, while some paternal cousin of his is elected Stadtholder.

Neither Britain nor the Netherlands want a personal union of the two countries.

Another possibility is that the Orangist political faction in the Netherlands has him abdicate his British claim in favor of his next senior aunt, Mary, Landgravine consort of Hesse-Kassel. This would be awkward, as Mary despised her husband, who had also converted to Roman Catholicism in 1756. (This seems to have been some kind of personal weirdness; it was not applied to his realm.) However, she had moved with their three living sons to Denmark (the eldest was 17 in 1760).

Ah, I had a feeling a personal union would be too much to hope for. Still, you’ve given me many good ideas.

William lived to be 56 or so, so he would reign over 40 years. Which is pretty long. And in any case, why would his succession avert a long-reigning monarch two or three generations down the road?

Sorry, I wasn't clear with that statement. What I meant was that Victoria helped preside over a relative golden age for Great Britain through circumstances unique to OTL. Those same circumstances wouldn't happen again ITTL, so how would a different monarch handle India/the Industrial Rev/republicanism/all of the other sociopolitical changes of the 1800s?

The American Revolution is going to be affected substantially by a decade or so of ministerial rule while William is a minor.

Agreed.

You want Willem V as king of Britain, possibly the worst stadholder the Netherlands got? I didn't realise you hated Britain so much. With Willem you probably get the "fat Duke" too.

Sorry, didn't mean to step on a third rail there. No, I don't hate Britain (even if I am American with some French ancestry)--one of my goals was to have a more peaceful solution to the American Revolution (or avert it). I'll admit that I barely knew a thing about Willem V before last night, though. :eek:

Anyway, for the situation in the Netherlands, the main struggle is the early incarnation of the patriots against the Orange faction. With Willem in Britain, the patriots probably win, limiting the power of the stadholder in the Netherlands, unless Willem can convince the British to attack the Netherlands, like the Prussians did OTL.

Actualy i probably need to do a little bit more research. Anyway, I am not realy impressed by Willem V. He was a weak stadholder who was easily influenced by others. With him as king, it probably means parliament rules Britain.

No problem--you have a lot of knowledge to offer already, and I know I need to read up more as well. Can anyone offer good books on this time period in Europe and the colonies?
 
Last edited:
Well, I think Dutch politics would be drastically different as a potential part of the UK. How closely integrated would the Netherlands be? How soon would they separate? Would the French still attempt to put a puppet gov’t of their own in place a la the Batavian Republic? And then, the British took a lot of Dutch colonies IOTL anyway.
I think you would be able to compare the status of the Netherlands with Hanover. A personal union (if you can call it a personal union), but not an attempt to integrate it like happened to Scotland. It is possible for it to happen during or after a French revolution, but it completely sepends on the political situation of the Netherlands. That political situation is very interesting. There were many people who did not like the corrupt regents, who ruled the Netherlands. They hoped Willem V would do something about them, but as Willem V was a very weak ruler, he basicly chose the site of those regents. In reaction the patriot (who also included some of those corrupt regents btw) movement grew, who wanted to get rid of the corrupt regents and the stadholder. Willem V basicly lost any autority, moved to Nijmegen, until his wife had enough, tried to do something about it, failed and asked her brother, the king of Prussia to help. He kicked the (leading) patriots out of the Netherlands and restored the autority of the stadholder 9until the French kicked them out of the Netherlands).


the question now is what would happen if Willem is king of Britain. It would mean that he spends most of his time in Britain. Would this mean that the proto-patriots won't lose their respect for the stadholder? Or would it mean they would just get rid of the stadholder altogether? If that last thing happens, how would britain react? Would they send help and restore order, like the Prussians did? I am not sure.

One thing though. If the French revolution happens and they act like OTL (screw overthe Netherlands completely), I consider it perfectly possible that the Dutch welcome the return of the house of Orange-Nassau, possibly strengthening their ties with Britain as a safeguard against France. Would the British want such a thing though? it looked liked they were very happy to let Hanover go.

Post revolutionairy Europe would look very different though.

I'm aware of that, but could it become hereditary as part of a dynastic union? It sounds like that would not happen.


Ah, I had a feeling a personal union would be too much to hope for. Still, you’ve given me many good ideas.
As I said, the position of stadholder had been hereditairy since Willem V's father. So Willem would be both king and stadholder of the Netherlands and contrary to Willem III, he would be stadholder of all provinces and Drenthe (officialy not one of the 7 provinces province).
 
Even ITTL Willem V could still be married to a sister of the king of Prussia though. At least a match with the Brandenburg-Prussian house of Hohenzollern won't meet any real opposition in Britain nor in the Dutch Republic. The only opposition could be a better potential match.
 
Last edited:
Even ITTL Willem V could still be married to a sister of the king of Prussia though. At least a match with the Brandenburg-Prussian house of Hohenzollern won't meet any real opposition in Britain nor in the Dutch Republic. They only opposition could be a better potential match.
No, seems pretty likely. She was a good match, both for a stadholder as a British king.

BTW, this would mean not only a "personal union" between the Netherlands and Britain, but also a personal union between Nassau (well half of it at least) and Britain.
 
The Glorious Bump

Hopefully, a five-day gap is alright. Your responses sound reasonable overall and have given me a lot to mull over. Could a Governor-General be chosen to stand in for the king/replace the stadholdership in the Netherlands in the mid-1700s if Willem V was too unpopular? How would Dutch republicans handle such a move? I don't know how Parliament would feel about this, and if they're in a nationalist mood, they might not accept Willem's request to "restore order" in the Netherlands. With that said, they WILL agree to protect it against any kind of France--the Anglo-French enmity is too strong for Great Britain to think otherwise atm.

Even ITTL Willem V could still be married to a sister of the king of Prussia though. At least a match with the Brandenburg-Prussian house of Hohenzollern won't meet any real opposition in Britain nor in the Dutch Republic. The only opposition could be a better potential match.

No, seems pretty likely. She was a good match, both for a stadholder as a British king.

BTW, this would mean not only a "personal union" between the Netherlands and Britain, but also a personal union between Nassau (well half of it at least) and Britain.

That would be an interesting match, as we might see a closer Anglo-Prussian relationship against France, Russia, and perhaps Austria ITTL. It's early enough that a German navy would not be an issue, of course, and there might be earlier ways to work around that issue before it ever becomes a problem like IOTL.

True, but I think Britain would be more likely to let Nassau go if they had the right incentives.
 
Could a Governor-General be chosen to stand in for the king/replace the stadholdership in the Netherlands in the mid-1700s if Willem V was too unpopular? How would Dutch republicans handle such a move?
The most likely thing to happen is that the Dutch regents would simply ignore the stadholder. Don't forget the stadholder never was a king. He had a lot of influence but not a lot of power. The power was in the hands of the regents. A good and competent stadholder could become the most important person in the Dutch republic, an incompetent one (like Willem V) would become irrelevant. With Willem V in Britain, I think he probably would simply be ignored.

Interestingly though, Willem V could become a symbol against the corrupt regents, which he could exploit in gaining more power in the Netherlands. Sadly for Willem, I don't think he can. Although if he has the right advisors, he might.
I don't know how Parliament would feel about this, and if they're in a nationalist mood, they might not accept Willem's request to "restore order" in the Netherlands. With that said, they WILL agree to protect it against any kind of France--the Anglo-French enmity is too strong for Great Britain to think otherwise atm.
My theory is that Willem V get more or less ignored in the Netherlands, but because of the union the Netherlands will not become as anti-British as OTL. It is more likely the Netherlands gets involved in the seven year war and it is less likely the Netherlands will (openly) support the American war of independence (although no doubt some Dutch merchants will try to profit from it), which means no 4th Anglo-Dutch war.

the Dutch political situation will be complex. there will be some variant of the patriot struggle (which was unavoidable in my opinion), but with the stadholder in Britain, it will be very different from OTL (especialy with a different American war of independence). I believe the Dutch republic will be happily doing what they are doing ignoring the Stadholder, until the moment France becomes a threat (in either the seven year war or the revolutionairy wars) and then ask for the stadholder (and his British support) again. Kind of what always happens in Dutch politics without a stadholdr around.
 
Top